AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 17.2.1998 passed in Case No. 11/98 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam (for short the ''District Forum''), whereby the complaint for not supplying adequate water amounting to deficiency in service was dismissed.
THE appellant before us has filed an application pointing out that in Officers Colony, there is a proper and adequate water supply but to him and other signatories of the application water supply is deficient due to low pressure. Water is essential for life. Due to low pressure, supply of water is not adequate even to meet minimum requirements of the family. It is the moral and legal duty of the respondent to make requisite quantity of water supply to all the citizens. THE respondent is deficient in service in not releasing the adequate pressure for adequate supply of water. Admittedly, on payment of water tax the Municipal Corporation discharges its statutory functions and duties contained in Chapter V of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1956 (for short the ''Act of 1956''). Section 88 of the Act of 1956 speaks of the matters to be provided for by the Corporation as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (z). Chapter XVI deals with water supply. We quote Clause (k) of Section 66 and relevant Sections 220, 221 and 222 of Chapter XVI. "66. Matters to be provided for by Corporation- (a) .......................................... (k) The management and maintenance of all municipal water works and the construction and maintenance of new work and means for providing a sufficient supply of suitable water for public and private purposes; (1) xxx xxx xxx 220. General powers for supplying the city with water.-For the purpose of providing a supply of water proper and sufficient for public and private purposes, the Commissioner may, either within or without the city- (a) construct and maintain water-works and do all acts which may be necessary or expedient in connection with such construction or maintenance; (b) purchase or take on lease any water-work or any water or right to store water or to take and convey water; or (c) enter into any arrangement with any person for the supply of water : Provided that if in the city any Government Department is administering and controlling water supply, the Commissioner shall not make any such arrangement without prior approval of the Government and the arrangement shall be subject to the terms and conditions laid down by Government in this respect. 221. Supply of water.-(1) The Commissioner may supply water for any purpose on receiving a written application specifying the purpose for which such supply is required and the quantity likely to be consumed. (2) The supply of water shall be made upon such terms and conditions as to payment and quantity and for such period, as the Corporation may prescribe in this behalf. (3) The Corporation may, on such terms as it may think fit, undertake to supply water to any area outside the city from the water-works maintained by the Corporation and do other acts ancillary thereto. 222. Making connections with municipal water-works.-Where an application under Section 221 has been received all necessary communication pipes and fittings shall be supplied by the Commissioner and the work of laying and applying such communication and fitting shall be executed by municipal agency under the Commissioner''s orders; but the cost of making any such connection and of all communication pipes and fittings so supplied and of all work so executed, shall be paid by the owner or the person making such application. The Commissioner shall provide a matter and charge rent for the same."
The question of inadequate quantity of water supply was considered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Branch at Indore in case of V.M. Pantvaidya (Maj.) v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, L.P.A. No. 38 of 1997 (I), decided on 3.11.1998 reported as a short noted decision in 1999 (1) MPWN 186, wherein the provisions of Sections 66 of Chapter V and 220 to 222 of Chapter XVI of the Act of 1956 were considered and it was observed thus : "A survey of the provisions relied upon by petitioner does not suggest any such conclusion. Section 66 falling under Chapter V only requires the Corporation to make adequate provision for management and maintenance of all municipal water-works and construction of new works for providing supply of suitable water for public and private purpose. It does not enjoin upon it to provide water to all and sundry and asking and de hors of any terms and conditions. Similarly Section 220 empowers Commissioner for supplying proper and sufficient water for public and private purpose. Sections 221 and 222 laid down the procedure for making of applications for allotment of water connection, etc. It would be seen that none of these provisions casts any statutory mandatory duty on the Corporation to supply water to any individual and that too in a particular quantity, nor do these confer any corresponding right on the consumer. It would be too much to say that Corporation was duty bound to ensure uninterrupted flow of water to all and sundry unconditionally. As would be evident the statute only required it to make provisions by lawful measures for management and maintenance of water-works to provide sufficient water supply for public and private purpose. But it would all depend on various factors including resources position of the Corporation and the technical aspects involved. Moreover allotment of a water connection to a consumer was a contractual matter governable by its own fastened on the Corporation to supply water to the consumers in disregard of such conditions. It may be a difficult matter where consumer invokes contractual clauses to seek their enforcement. A direction could perhaps issue in such a case."
THE question of water supply was considered in the light of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') by the National Commission in case of the Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee & Ors., I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC). THE National Commission following its earlier decision in case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., II (1991) CPJ 56, observed that the construction and maintenance of water-works and providing means for water supply is a statutory duty of the Corporation for the public as one of the obligatory statutory functions of the Corporation and it is only in the discharge of the said statutory duty that the Corporation is maintaining the system of water supply to the appellant with the municipal limits. THErefore, availing water supply on payment of tax does not mean that the complainant is hiring services on payment of tax, therefore, the dispute raised by the complainant about the inadequacy of pressure in water supply is not a consumer dispute. In case of Ganga Saran & Ors. v. Hasanpur Gas Agency, II (1992) CPJ 394 (NC), the National Commission has held that a taxpayer who pays the tax would not be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as the tax paid goes into the general reserves of the State or local Authority which will not legally constitute payment of consideration for specific purpose.
THIS Commission in case of Parabchand Jain v. C.E.O. Nagar Palika, II (1995) CPJ 22, has held that unless a person becomes the consumer the provisions of the Act are not attracted in relation to supply of water by the body corporate like Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation as these bodies do not render any service of supply of water in terms of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahar v. Manmohan Lal Saxena, 2000 (1) CON.LT 314, following the decision of the National Commission in case of Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee & Ors. (supra), and its earlier decision in case of Dinanath Arora v. Govind Prasad Agrawal & Ors., II (1996) CPJ 89, held that the construction and maintenance of water-works and providing means for water supply is a statutory function of Municipal Corporation. Payment of property or water tax cannot constitute payment of "consideration" for hiring or availing of a service of the Municipal Board. In such cases the person getting the water supply is not a consumer. Therefore, the complaint for supply of water under certain pressure would not be maintainable as the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide any such complaint. In view of the above, the complaint was rightly dismissed as not entertainable by the District Forum. However, the appellant if so advised, may take appropriate proceedings as may be available to him in accordance with law to seek relief of uninterrupted water supply or increase in pressure in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case. Appeal dismissed.